As an ACS member you automatically get access to this site. All we need is few more details to create your reading experience.

If you have an ACS member number, please enter it here so we can link this account to your membership. (optional)

ERROR 2

Yes! I want to get the latest chemistry news from C&EN in my inbox every week.

ACS values your privacy. By submitting your information, you are gaining access to C&EN and subscribing to our weekly newsletter. We use the information you provide to make your reading experience better, and we will never sell your data to third party members.

The proposed class encompasses residents of the U.S. who have a detectable level of PFASs in their blood serum and claim they are injured from this exposure. The companies did not get plaintiffs’ permission before exposing them to PFASs, the suit says.

Lead plaintiff Kevin D. Hardwick has worked as firefighter for more than 40 years, according to the complaint. Hardwick’s exposure stems in part from his firefighting gear, which is coated or treated with PFASs, as well as his use of firefighting foams containing these substances.

The suit, filed Oct. 4 in federal trial court in Ohio, seeks the creation of a panel of scientific experts that would evaluate evidence and determine any probable link between PFAS exposure and human health problems.

This request is fashioned after one in a 2004 class-action settlement with DuPont regarding exposure to one PFAS, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), that was released from a plant near Parkersburg, W.Va. That science panel found probable links between PFOA and several health problems.

Chemical & Engineering News will not share your email address with any other person or company.

Article:

This article has been sent to the following recipient:

Comments

lana (October 12, 2018 10:57 AM)

If I recall correctly, the fluorinated compounds used to waterproof garments are VERY different from the fluorinated substances used in surfactants for firefighting foams, and both are not the PFOA that the Parkersburg panel suggested might have health impacts. Is this new case claiming harm from residual PFOA...or 'all that 'fluorinated" stuff'?

I seem to recall reading that firefighters have pretty high cancer rates, and documented occupational risk factors (shift work, inhaled combustion products etc)...even before the widespread use of fluorinated foams or water-repellents.

Leave A Comment

*Required to comment

Lori Chilers (October 16, 2018 7:26 AM)

EPA Site: PFAS can be found in:

Food packaged in PFAS-containing materials, processed with equipment that used PFAS, or grown in PFAS-contaminated soil or water.Commercial household products, including stain- and water-repellent fabrics, nonstick products (e.g., Teflon), polishes, waxes, paints, cleaning products, and fire-fighting foams (a major source of groundwater contamination at airports and military bases where firefighting training occurs).Workplace, including production facilities or industries (e.g., chrome plating, electronics manufacturing or oil recovery) that use PFAS.Drinking water, typically localized and associated with a specific facility (e.g., manufacturer, landfill, wastewater treatment plant, firefighter training facility).Living organisms, including fish, animals and humans, where PFAS have the ability to build up and persist over time.

Leave A Comment

*Required to comment

Elle (October 16, 2018 10:23 PM)

It may not be PFOA, but there are over 4,750 different chemicals in the PFAS family. They are used in waterproofing, AFFF, fast food wrappers, nonstick items, the list goes on and on. PFOS sand PFOA are just the most studied at this point, but there are at least 4,748 more.